2011 IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering 2011
DOI: 10.1109/case.2011.6042490
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Instrumented prosthesis for knee implants monitoring

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It guarantees minimal change in the prostheses PE while reduces wireless connection problems, and better fulfills energy harvesting constraints. However, this study did not address the remote powering, electronics and communication issues; study of these issues is in progress while the concept feasibility has been shown recently (Arami et al, 2011).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…It guarantees minimal change in the prostheses PE while reduces wireless connection problems, and better fulfills energy harvesting constraints. However, this study did not address the remote powering, electronics and communication issues; study of these issues is in progress while the concept feasibility has been shown recently (Arami et al, 2011).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…IE was generated with the prosthesis using the knee mechanical simulator (Arami et al, 2011) equipped with reflective markers (Fig. 3a).…”
Section: Validationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Although tremendous advances have been made in musculoskeletal biomechanics, potential breakthroughs are hindered by limitations in acquiring reliable in vivo measurements such as joint contact forces and soft tissue deformations [7,8]. While hip and knee joint contact forces have been measured using instrumented implants [9][10][11], these devices are typically implanted in older patients, and the motions collected are limited to relatively slow motions such as gait, stair climbing, and slow jogging. In addition, the behavior may not be representative of what happens in a native joint since geometries and material properties have been altered.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The most probable cause of premature implant failure is aseptic loosening, which is a severe physiological response to foreign debris in the joint. This debris is generated from abrasive wear in the ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) of the tibial insert, due to malpositioning of the articular surfaces and the high forces acting in the joint [3], [4]. Therefore, effective monitoring of the active stresses within the UHMWPE insert can provide a clearer perception of knee biomechanics, and provide real-time observation on the condition of the knee implant.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%